About your Search

20120925
20121003
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12
defense attorney, stood on a downtown los angeles sidewalk and he watched his chief investigator seized by the police caught in the act of bribing a juror. a few weeks later, darrow was indicted on two counts of bribery, and burt franklin, the investigator, agreed to testify against them. he swore that darrow had ordered him to pay $4000 to jurors who agreed to vote not guilty. and darrow was at that time at the height of the same one of america's foremost trial lawyers, political leaders and populist champions, and his careened staggered off track there in southern california. caught up by shame he left his wife one reunite for the apartment of his mistress. with a revolver in one pocket and a whiskey barrel -- whiskey bottle in the other, he sat down and vowed to kill them so. she brought out two glasses. they sat at a wooden table underneath one of those swinging bare lightbulbs. and fortunately for us she talked him out of it. he went on to create an american architect, lawyer for the little guy, advocate for the common folk. poking his thumbs, regarding the jury from beneath that c
. and the implications for missile defense. and then from then i will move on to conclude. in the case of iran, which i think we can say this every now again in the nose, and i saw just yesterday a story about will israel deliver an october surprise. the fundamental problem here is, is the possibility of a cuban missile crisis in the middle east. and to understand this, we briefly go back to what nikita khrushchev had in mind. khrushchev, in 1961, met in june with president kennedy, the enemy. and he pushed kennedy a round. kennedy himself said later he really beat me up. he decided that kennedy was not up to it, and kennedy said what about the possibility of -- i'm paraphrasing not having a transcript in front of me -- what about the possibility of miscalculation? you have to be careful. and khrushchev sent miscalculation, miscalculation. i don't want to hear this word of miscalculation. i'm tired of hearing it. so in 1961, khrushchev decided partly, many because of the summit, that he could pushed kennedy a little further. so what he did was, working with the east german leader, they begin the berlin
for and civil liberties. let's repeal the patriot act. i would've ever send the national defense authorization act allowing for you and i to be arrested and detained without being charged by the u.s. government. the spring about marriage equality, get out of afghanistan tomorrow. bring the troops home. let's end the drug wars. look, these are democrat issues come historically democrat issues that they aren't going anywhere and today. just like republicans, historically issues have been about dollars and cents. and neither one of the parties do well in the areas they are supposed to do well. they are horrible in the areas they don't do well and coming meeting romney is horrible on civil liberties and obama is horrible when it comes to dollars and cents. >> as a libertarian now, is it a little tougher to get media attention away from the two-party system and especially as the campaign goes on this fall? >> speaking for myself personally, there's probably been a 30% pickup in attention given, making the switch. so now, i think just the opposite, that it has picked up an unbelieving that when peop
. and in my defense -- [laughter] i would just like to say, you know, whatever, okay? [laughter] it was basic cable, all right? you don't pay extra for cnn. [laughter] and everything. no, it was somewhat more informed decision than it. i thought the law was going to be overturned based on the oral arguments in part, because in my experience and rehnquist and roberts court this is not accord with the they play a lot of devils advocate. they use oral arguments. their questions to make their case to the colleagues, and it sure looked to me during most of the arguments that the five conservatives were very much leaning against the obama administration on the key argument in the case, which was uzbek commerce clause of article one of congress to pass the individual mandate. which says individuals have to get health insurance. and as i sat in court on june 28 and heard chief justice roberts announce his decision in the case, i learned the edge to the question, which was no, it doesn't. the commerce clause does not allow the court, the congress to invoke an individual mandate. but then any decision
and pundits who watch the oral argument of that case and said, in my defense, i would just like to say, whatever, okay? [laughter] it was basic cable, all right? [laughter] you don't pay extra for cnn. >> no, it was somewhat more informed of a position on that. it looked to me during most of the arguments that the five conservatives were very much leaning against the obama administration on the key argument in the case. which is does the commerce choir in turn caused allow congress to pass the individual mandate. which says that individuals have to get health insurance. as i sat in court and heard him make the decision, i thought, the commerce clause does not allow the congress to invoke the individual mandate. john roberts mentioned a subsidiary argument that had been mentioned in passing. individual mandate was a permissible use of the taxing power of congress and not the commerce clause and thus the law can be upheld. i think that there were three main reasons. the first was i think you have to take things at face value and that would be a legitimate use of it. the second and third,
court is declared unconstitutional. the defensive marriage act has been declared unconstitutional by a number of federal courts and appeals from those judgments are now before the supreme court not part by the government because the obama administration also believes that that was unconstitutional but also brought by the house of representatives which has a right to defend an act of congress that the president chooses not to defend, and i think it is a sure bet the court is going to undertake a review of the defensive marriage act again because there are judgments on the books of the lower court saying that it's unconstitutional. so again, that kind of agenda setting function, what we are to be hearing about and the beating and talking about and also getting a decision and it really lies within the power of the court under appreciated power because one thing it raises is how do the justices know what's important? how do they know what the should be deciding? obviously when people bring their appeal to the supreme court they lay out the case and the format of one of the petitions t
're very careful, very defensive when i ask them how do you relate to the political parties in spain. they all smile and say we keep as far away from them as we can. and they do. they have nothing to do with them. [laughter] their sense is parliamentary politics is the hornet's nest of trouble and corruption. even though they clearly have their leftist -- it's very obvious when you go there they are on the left, but they do not. they want to keep very clear of the -- but they are a stunning example of what can be done. not that you have to go to other countries. cooperative enterprise. and, again, let me urge you -- i'm really embarrassed that i forgot the title, but one of your folks here in san francisco, in berkeley, john curl, curl, written a book. new edition came out this year. of the history of cooperative enterprise here in the united states. it will amaze you of how much our history as a nation is wrapped up with people who came from all over the world with all kinds of experiences they brought with them in collective or cooperative or community enterprise. last point. the k
old tradition he had it in buddhism. when you're a defense for if you're serious about religion never resist hour. he never challenge of our because this power is given by god. who if years dealing hit, you better deal with the pack leader and to create the revolve is going to you is theft. you have also other interpretations. when you have an unjust leader the have to resist and to have to remove them because he has to be accountable. you cannot accept an unjustly it and you have to resist. men mom -- not always as easy as this. and even he can't sell a revolution by non-violent way soon. a think that we need today, and i wrote about this milked the -- i wrote about this. my point was we had what happened, the global movement of nonviolent resistance to israel. nonviolence. when you have so many means of communication. sometimes you have to do with the means to understand non-violence it's important. successful because they were not violent. i like this man in yemen. into the street. they want to kill us. it went. very, very worried of what's happening in syria with people getting we
. that is not just about low income people but a lot of things. also true that if we spend unnecessarily on defense we are not doing other things. it is not just about taxes. there is one aspect of it, those who got it and don't share it by law. we just have -- can't do things that we need to do. but then there is the part that is not just money. people just feeling correctly that they are not wanted as part of the social fabric. they are not included. that is going to happen in a much more awful way if there is this sense of a few handfulss of people and companies, the coke brothers and all the rest of that. it is a combination of the liberal affect of money being divided and has the effect -- we have the gated community and the affects of that is much more than the gates themselves. they knew nothing about the rest of society and care nothing about the rest of society. pull up the gangplank and set the traps and heck with it. it is corrosive to the quality of the democracy itself. >> one more question. >> my name is may. my personal thought is you need to get the young people out to vote. i would
laugh over engine charlie wilson who is the secretary of defense under eisenhower. they always mangled the quote. they say what is good for general motors is good for america. now, he said what is good for america is good for general motors and vice versa. what he said is the fate of the company and the fate of the country were inextricably linked, when one does well, the other day as well, not smash and grab. >> another question is another thing that really annoys me is every time i buy something it says made in china. so i hate seeing that and that is why that's something that i just have a very strong feeling about making it products. this whole thing was becoming dependent upon china is really a problem. and the other problem is because of the way a lot of businesses operate come you can't compete with china and it's very expensive to produce domestic products in the united states. there's not that many companies who do that. there are small businesses. and you know, a lot of people in the news say we can just cut off -- we could say no to china whenever we want and just come back
in philadelphia that we are going to see at other points in the ratification process. sort of defense and arguments. who sits at home and drafts arguments that you see letters? you don't have a staff do these things. these are people who were engaged and also -- these were not scholars. these were not people who appropriated to themselves licenses to interpret or talk about this. these were foreigners. some of them who had formal education and some did not but they cared about this country. i think that i go back to your point. you talk about the written and the unwritten constitution. the unwritten constitution is sort of trying to to bring current events and problems and development and that debate continues on each one of them and that is why you see different points. that is why arguments -- why your scholarship is so important. one thing i like about the tone is it is so positive. it is refreshing. here are some answers. let's talk about it. i tell my clerk when we work we've got to explain. your parents are immigrants. i don't think their doctors or lawyers. is there constitutio
. and there is a lot of evidence, like you say with your example of the commission on the defense, a nevada social finance says he simply living to two different universes. so it strikes me that change anything really fundamentally means we have to change attitudes. sabato says that. my question is that one issue that i see is fox news, which is essentially a 24 propaganda machine. i'm curious about your views in terms of what is the influence of fox news on the attitudes and the dialogue in this country, and how is that an asset or barrier to change or barrier to change or barrier to change that's a good question. i will broaden it a little bit i've seen fox and msnbc, neither one does a lot of good for the country. i suggest now most people in here probably anti-violence, right? i hesitate to say this, but i thought we could actually solve a lot of our nations problems if we took rush limbaugh and keith olbermann and put them in the same bag and drop them off the bridge. so i do think various problems on both sides. but if i can expand a little bit -- that was a good question and one of the wors
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)